Baptism THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 386 See also the omission of "couches" in the same verse. The couches were "pallets" and could easily be dipped into water. It is noteworthy that here rhantizd is used in contrast with baptizd, showing that baptizd did not mean sprinkle. "The terra baptismds occurs in Jos (Ant, XVIII, v, 2) in con¬ nection with John's baptism (cf also Irenaeus 686 B about Cffiist's baptism). In general, however, baptismo, is the subst. found for the ordinance. The vb. baptizd is in reaUty a frequentative or in¬ tensive of baptd ("dip"). Examples occur where that idea is still appropriate, as in 2 K 5 14 (LXX) where Naaman is said to have "dipped himself seven times in the Jordan" (ebaptlsato). The notion of repetition may occur also in Jos (Ant, XV, Ui, 3) in connection with the death of Aristobffius, brother of Mariamne, for Herod's friends "dipped him as he was swimming, and plunged ffim under water, in the dark of the eveffing." But in general the term baptizd, as is coramon 'with such forms in the late Gr, is simply eqffivalent to baptd (cf Lk 16 24) and means "dip," "immerse," just as rhantizd, Uke rhaind, means simply "sprinkle." If baptizd never occurred in connection ¦vrith a disputed ordinance, there would be no controversy on the meaffing of the word. There are, indeed, fig. or metaphorical uses of the word as of other words, but the fig. is that of iraraersion, like our "ira- mersed in cares," "plunged in grief," etc. It remains to consider whether the use of the word for a ceremony or ordinance has changed its signfficance in the NT as corapared with ancient Gr. It may be reraarked that no Baptist has ¦written a lexicon of the Gr language, and yet the standard lexicons, hke that of Liddell and Scott, unfformly give the meaning of baptizd as "dip," "iraraerse." They do not give "pour" or "sprinkle," nor has anyone ever adduced an instance where tffis verb means "pour" or "sprinkle." The presumption is therefore in favor of "dip" in the NT. Before we turn dheotly to the discussion of the ceremonial usage, a word is called for in regard to Jewish proselyte baptism. It is still 2. Prose- a matter of dispute whether tffis lyte Bap- initiatory rite was in existence at the tism time of John the Baptist or not. Schffier argues ably, if not conclusive¬ ly, for the idea that tffis proselyte baptism was in use long before the ffist raention of it in the 2d cent, (cf The Jewish People in the Time of Jes-us Christ, Div ii, II, 319 ff; also Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, Appendix, xu. Baptism of Proselytes). It matters nothing at all to the Baptist contention what is true in this regard. It would not be strange ff a bath was reqffired for a Gentile who became a Jew, when the Jews themselves reqffired such frequent ceremonial ablutions. But what was the Jewish initiatory rite called proselyte bap¬ tism? Lightfoot (Horae Hebraicae, Mt 3 7) gives the law for the baptism of proselytes: ' 'As soon as he grows whole of the wound of circumcision, they bring him to Baptism, and being placed in the water they again instruct him in sorae weightier and in some lighter comraands of the Law. Which being heard, he plunges ffimseff and comes up, and, behold, he is an Israehte in all things." To this quotation Marcus Dods (Presbyterian) HDB adds: "To use Pauline language, ffis old raan is dead and buried in the water, and he rises from this cleansmg grave a new man. The fffil significance of the rite would have been lost had iraraersion not been practised." Lightfoot says further: "Every person baptized must dip his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And wheresoever in the Law washing of the body or garments is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body." Edersheim (op. cit.) says: "Women were attended by those of their own sex, the rabbis standing at the door outside." Jewish proselyte baptism, an initiatory ceremoffial rite, harraoffizes exactly with the current meaffing of baptizd aheady seen. There was no peculiar "sacred" sense that changed "dip" to "sprmkle." The Gr language has had a continuous history, and baptizd is used today in Greece for baptism. As is well known, not only in Greece, but 3. Greek all over Russia, wherever the Gr church Usage prevails, immersion is the unbroken and uffiversal practice. The Greeks may surely be credited with knowledge of the raeaffing of their own language. The substitution of pouring or sprinkUng for immersion, as the Cffiis¬ tian ordinance of baptism, was late and gradual and finally triumphed in the West because of the decree of the Council of Trent. But the Baptist position is that tffis substitution was unwarranted and subverts the real signfficance of the ordinance. The Gr church does practice trine iraraersion, one immersion for each person of the Triffity, an old practice (cf ter mergitamur, Tertullian ii.79 A), but not the Scriptural usage. A word will be needed later concerning the method by wffich pouring crept in beside iraraersion in the 2d and later cents. Be¬ fore we turn directly to the NT use of baptizd it is well to quote from the Greek Lexicon of the Boman and Byzantine Periods by Professor E. A. Sophocles, ffimself a native Greek. He says (p. 297): "There is no eridence that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the NT put upon tffis verb meaffings not recogffized by the Greeks." We expect therefore to find in the NT "dip," as the meaning of tffis word in the ceremoffial sense of an initiatory Cffiistian rite. Thayer's Lexicon likewise defines the word in this cereraonial Cffiistian use to raean "an iraraer¬ sion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin." Baptists coffid very well afford to rest the matter right here. There is no need to call for the testi¬ raony of a single Baptist scholar on this subject. The world of scholarsffip has rendered its decision with impartiaUty and force on the side of the Baptists in this matter. A few recent deUverances wiU suffice. Dr. Alfred Plummer (Church of Eng¬ land) in ffis new Commentary on Matthew (p. 28) says that the office of John the Baptist was "to bind them to a new Ufe, symboUzed by immersion in water." Swete (Church of England) in his Commentary m Mark (p. 7) speaks of "the added thought of immersion, which gives rividness to the scene.'' The early Gr ecclesiastical writers show that immersion was employed (ef Bamabas, XI, 11): "We go down into the water full of sins and filth, and we come up bearing frmt in the heart." For numerous ecclesiastical examples see Sophocles' Lexicon. But the NT itself makes the whole matter per¬ fectly plain. The uniform raeaffing of "dip" for baptizd and the use of the river .lordan 4. NT as the place for baptizing by John the Usage Baptist raakes inevitable the notion of immersion unless there is some direct contradictory testimony. It is a matter that should be Ufted above verbal qffibbUng or any effort to disprove the obvious facts. The simple narrative in Mt 3 6 is that "they were baptized of him in the river Jordan." In Mk 1 9.10 the baptism is sharpened a bit in the use of eis and ek. Jesus "was baptized of John in [eis] the .Jordan. And straightway coming up out of [efc] the water, he saw." So in Acts 8 38 we read: "They both went down into [eis] the water, both Pffilip and the eunuch; and he baptized ffim. And when they came up out of [efc] the water, the Sphit .... caught away PhiUp." If one could stUl be in doubt